‘Ancient technology that’s lost to us’ is one of those phrases that is used to construct a motte and bailey argument which opens a gap through which some crazy

‘Ancient technology that’s lost to us’ is one of those phrases that is used to construct a motte and bailey argument which opens a gap through which some crazy theories get inserted, so it’s worthy of being treated with skepticism. Are there ancient structures where we are unsure what technologies were used to make them? Yes, absolutely. Does the existence of such artifacts imply the existence of certain precursor technologies and tools used to build them? Yes, but we must proceed cautiously. Without direct evidence of the tools and technologies used we are speculating based on the results we observe, about what the means used to produce them must have been. The same result, though, can be produced in many different ways. Problems we look at today and say ‘surely that would require a machine or a powerful engine to do?’ might be solved instead by just throwing manpower at the problem, or by taking much more time to execute than we might initially assume is reasonable. And the existence of doubt about which of several historically plausible theories as to how something was constructed does not automatically mean that historically implausible theories are equally valid. And, most importantly, does the fact that we have ‘lost’ the precise techniques used in ancient constructions leave open the possibility that those ancient techniques were actually superior to what we have today? Theoretically, but in general, no, of course not. Be very wary whenever you see someone say something like ‘the precision of these stone blocks exceeds what we can do today’. These are nonsensical claims made from ignorance about what modern engineering is capable of. Take a look just at how modern kitchen counters are cut, let alone how precisely engineered something like a modern tunnel, or the LIGO gravity wave detector was constructed.